RAJ KUMAR Vs. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.5.1996 passed by the Sub - -Judge II. Bermo at Tenughat in arbitration case No. 16 of 1995 whereby an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 22 of the Arbitration Act seeking relief for direction to the defendant respondents to file arbitration agreement and for referring the disputes for arbitration has been rejected.

(2.) It is not necessary to go into the detailed facts of the case and suffice it to say that the plaintiff was allotted work by the respondents for renovation and modification of A.S.H. Bundh at City P.S. Under the agreement, the time for completion of the work was stipulated. It appears that the work could not be completed in the schedule time and the time was extended, but even then, the work could not be completed. However, according to the plaintiff, a good value of the work was completed apart from extra work, but payments were not made, although bills were submitted in time. According to the plaintiff, on much persuasion, part payment was made by the respondents and despite notice issued to the respondents, nothing was paid, nor the disputes or differences were committed to arbitration. The plaintiff, therefore, filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The defendant respondents opposed the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act contending. inter alia, that the petition is not sustainable and tenable in law and the same is mala fide. It was further stated that all claims made by the petitioner with regard to execution of the work of renovation and rectification of A.S.H. Bundh had already been paid to him for which he has made a No claim certificate' on the measurement books. It was further contended that the petitioner had field the suit in the Court of Munsif, Tenughat, which was ultimately withdrawn and thereafter this application, which is false and frivolous, was filed.

(3.) Learned Court below after the hearing the parties and after considering the evidence, came to the conclusion that no difference or dispute existed in view of the fact that the contract was terminated after full and final settlement of all claims of the plaintiff appellant and on the grant of no claim certificate' by the appellant. Accordingly, the application was rejected by the Court below.